Africa Great Lakes Democracy Watch

Welcome toAfrica Great Lakes Democracy Watch Blog.Our objective is to promote the institutions of democracy,social justice,Human Rights,Peace, Freedom ofExpression, and Respect to humanity in Rwanda,Uganda,DR Congo, Burundi,Sudan, Tanzania, Kenya,Ethiopia, and Somalia. We strongly believe that Africa will develop if only our presidents stop being rulers of men and become leaders of citizens. We support Breaking the Silence Campaign for DR Congo since we believe the democracy in Rwanda means peace inDRC. Follow this link to learn more about the origin of the war in both Rwanda and DR Congo:http://www.rwandadocumentsproject.net/gsdl/cgi-bin/library

Paul Kagame meets the former US president Bill Clinton and his daughter, Chelsea, in Rwanda. Photograph: Cyril Ndegeya/AP

A "visionary leader," said Tony Blair; "one of the greatest leaders of our time," echoed Bill Clinton. Such hero worship is usually reserved for South Africa's Nelson Mandela. But Blair and Clinton were describing the president of Rwanda, Paul Kagame.
The
UK and US have staked their pride, reputations and ability to judge
character, not to mention hundreds of millions of pounds in aid, on Kagame's powers of post-genocide healing and reconciliation matching those of Mandela after apartheid.
That
is why the US decision to cut aid, and now to warn Kagame that he could
even face criminal prosecution over meddling in the neighbouring
Democratic Republic of Congo, is a humiliating but long overdue
reversal.
It piles the pressure on Britain to make a similar
admission that its long-time darling, revered as a success story that
underpins an entire ideology around donor development aid, could have feet of clay.
There
are two main reasons why Kagame's Rwanda has been bulletproof for so
long. One is western guilt over doing nothing to stop the 1994 genocide,
in which 800,000 people perished. Clinton, whose most recent visit was last week, has described it as "my personal failure".
The
UK, US and others rushed to embrace the east African state's new
leadership and support the rebuilding of the country: Rwanda was a
special case, and would be given more leeway than most. The aid taps
were turned on and the money flowed, with tangible results: great gains
in education and health and in the reduction of crime and poverty.
Secondly,
then, Rwanda has come to symbolise what donor aid can do. It has been a
trump card for the defence of the Department for International
Development (DfID) when the Treasury attempts to turn the screws.Britain is the country's biggest bilateral donor, with an average of £83m a year.
"When Clare Short was secretary of state, she was Kagame's number-one fan," says Carina Tertsakian, Human Rights Watch's senior researcher on Rwanda. "In her eyes, he could do no wrong. We're still living with the legacy of that now. Tony Blair was also taken in."
Blair was, and remains, one of Kagame's most ardent cheerleaders, and an unpaid adviser. His charity, the Africa Governance Initiative, places young interns in Rwandan government offices. Eighteen months ago, he told the Guardian:
"I'm a believer in, and a supporter of, Paul Kagame. I don't ignore all
those criticisms, having said that. But I do think you've got to
recognise that Rwanda is an immensely special case because of the
genocide.
"Secondly, you can't argue with the fact that Rwanda has
gone on a remarkable path of development. Every time I visit Kigali and
the surrounding areas, you can just see the changes being made in the
country."
David Cameron appears almost equally enamoured, and the
current development secretary, Andrew Mitchell, visited Rwanda only last
week. He said he had delivered "frank messages" to both Rwanda and
Congo about the current instability and violence.
Diplomatic
language apart, however, Britain has been painfully silent about
Rwanda's pernicious influence in its war-torn neighbour. The recent UN
group of experts' report named names in the Rwandan government and
military who are in contact with Congolese rebels, feeding from the
trough of its mineral resources and supplying weapons and uniforms.
Yet Kagame categorically denies it , and Britain apparently believes him, or can't bear to disbelieve, lest it suffer buyer's remorse.
"Kagame
was here last week and told a barefaced lie to David Cameron and other
British officials," says one UK-based analyst. "He denied Rwandan
meddling in Congo even though the evidence is overwhelming."
Britain
and others have turned a similarly blind eye to Rwanda's domestic
affairs. The state has been accused of murder and intimidation; political opponents and journalists have been jailed.
In 2008, the Economist said of Kagame:
"Although he vigorously pursues his admirers in western democracies, he
allows less political space and press freedom at home than Robert
Mugabe does in Zimbabwe."
The warts-and-all reality has been dawning on the US for some time. In 2010 it sounded warnings
that "the political environment ahead of the election has been riddled
by a series of worrying actions taken by the government of Rwanda, which
appear to be attempts to restrict the freedom of expression". Kagame
was re-elected with 93% of the vote.
None of this fits the
development darling narrative, however. Instead, it is much less
unpleasant for visiting diplomatics to admire the transformation of the
capital, Kigali, with its safety, orderliness and cleanliness (there is a
ban on plastic bags).
Rwanda has a flourishing economy and well-oiled PR machine, and the affable Kagame uses that most democratic of media, Twitter.
In
decades past, the west has been criticised for applying selective
vision to the sins of leaders such as Mugabe and Idi Amin until late in
the day. America, it seems, is reluctantly removing the scales from its
eyes regarding Paul Kagame. For Washington it may merely represent the
end of a beautiful friendship; for London, it will feel more like a
broken heart.